
Error message
In order to filter by the "in queue" property, you need to add the Entityqueue: Queue relationship.-
County NewsCourts in Pennsylvania and New Mexico have come to different conclusions on governors’ business closure and stay-at-home orders.Courts split over COVID-19 business closures
-
County News Article
Courts split over COVID-19 business closures
Courts across the country, including the U.S Supreme Court, have had to resolve legal challenges to stay-at-home orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. Different aspects of stay-at-home orders have been challenged under different legal theories, including governors’ decisions to close businesses. Perhaps unsurprisingly, courts, including the New Mexico Supreme Court and a federal district court in Pennsylvania, have come to different conclusions in these novel cases.
In Lujan Grisham v. Reeb, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the governor of New Mexico has the statutory authority to close non-essential businesses and limit the operations of essential businesses and can impose fines on those who don’t comply.
In the version of the closure order being challenged, essential businesses could operate at 20 percent capacity, restaurants could only open for delivery or carry out; close-contact, non-essential businesses like hair and nail salons could open at 25 percent capacity, and recreational non-essential businesses like movie theaters and museums remained closed.
To date, the New Mexico Supreme Court has only issued a brief oral announcement of its decision. Very likely the court relied on a section of the New Mexico Public Health Act that allows the Department of Health to “close any public places and forbid gatherings of people when necessary for the protection of public health.”
In Lujan Grisham v. Romero, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the temporary closure of indoor dining at restaurants and bars wasn’t arbitrary and capricious. For about six weeks, New Mexico allowed in-door dining at 50 percent capacity but then disallowed it with “increasing evidence linking indoor dining at restaurants to a higher risk of infection.”
Again, the New Mexico Supreme Court has yet to issue a written opinion in this case. During its brief oral announcement of its ruling, the court noted that recently U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts stated that the U.S. Constitution “entrusts safety and health decisions to the political branches of government,” not the judiciary.
Previously, a federal district court ruled New Mexico couldn’t close indoor dining at bars and restaurants. The New Mexico Supreme Court overturned this decision.
In County of Butler v. Wolf, a federal district court in Pennsylvania held that the governor’s decision to close all “non-life sustaining” businesses during the pandemic violated the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Specifically, the court concluded the closure decision was arbitrary in its “creation, scope and administration.” The Commonwealth had no “set, objective definition in writing” of what constitutes “life-sustaining,” and businesses shut down as “non-life sustaining” were often selling the same products as “life-sustaining” businesses. According to the court, it wasn’t rational to close down a furniture and small appliance store to limit personal interactions but keep Walmart open. This decision didn’t keep people home; it just sent them to Walmart.
While County of Butler v. Wolf was brought by four counties, the court concluded they, as creatures of the state, had no standing to sue the state.
Courts in Pennsylvania and New Mexico have come to different conclusions on governors’ business closure and stay-at-home orders.2020-09-21County News Article2023-04-11
Courts across the country, including the U.S Supreme Court, have had to resolve legal challenges to stay-at-home orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. Different aspects of stay-at-home orders have been challenged under different legal theories, including governors’ decisions to close businesses. Perhaps unsurprisingly, courts, including the New Mexico Supreme Court and a federal district court in Pennsylvania, have come to different conclusions in these novel cases.
In Lujan Grisham v. Reeb, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the governor of New Mexico has the statutory authority to close non-essential businesses and limit the operations of essential businesses and can impose fines on those who don’t comply.
In the version of the closure order being challenged, essential businesses could operate at 20 percent capacity, restaurants could only open for delivery or carry out; close-contact, non-essential businesses like hair and nail salons could open at 25 percent capacity, and recreational non-essential businesses like movie theaters and museums remained closed.
To date, the New Mexico Supreme Court has only issued a brief oral announcement of its decision. Very likely the court relied on a section of the New Mexico Public Health Act that allows the Department of Health to “close any public places and forbid gatherings of people when necessary for the protection of public health.”
In Lujan Grisham v. Romero, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the temporary closure of indoor dining at restaurants and bars wasn’t arbitrary and capricious. For about six weeks, New Mexico allowed in-door dining at 50 percent capacity but then disallowed it with “increasing evidence linking indoor dining at restaurants to a higher risk of infection.”
Again, the New Mexico Supreme Court has yet to issue a written opinion in this case. During its brief oral announcement of its ruling, the court noted that recently U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts stated that the U.S. Constitution “entrusts safety and health decisions to the political branches of government,” not the judiciary.
Previously, a federal district court ruled New Mexico couldn’t close indoor dining at bars and restaurants. The New Mexico Supreme Court overturned this decision.
In County of Butler v. Wolf, a federal district court in Pennsylvania held that the governor’s decision to close all “non-life sustaining” businesses during the pandemic violated the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Specifically, the court concluded the closure decision was arbitrary in its “creation, scope and administration.” The Commonwealth had no “set, objective definition in writing” of what constitutes “life-sustaining,” and businesses shut down as “non-life sustaining” were often selling the same products as “life-sustaining” businesses. According to the court, it wasn’t rational to close down a furniture and small appliance store to limit personal interactions but keep Walmart open. This decision didn’t keep people home; it just sent them to Walmart.
While County of Butler v. Wolf was brought by four counties, the court concluded they, as creatures of the state, had no standing to sue the state.


About Lisa Soronen (Full Bio)
Executive Director, State and Local Legal Center
Lisa Soronen is the Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC). Prior to joining the SLLC, Ms. Soronen worked for the National School Boards Association, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, and clerked for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.More from Lisa Soronen
-
Webinar
Update on the Amended Waters of the U.S. Rule
Sep. 11, 2023 , 3:00 pm – 4:00 pmOn August 29, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) issued a final rule amending the 2023 definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) to conform with the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision in Sackett v. EPA. -
County News
White House Advisor Tom Perez to county officials: ‘Let’s keep the momentum going’
Formerly a Montgomery County, Md. Council member, Tom Perez is now the White House director of intergovernmental affairs -
County News
Build relationships with state legislators, media to avoid local government preemption laws
Building relationships with state representatives and the press is the way to ensure counties still have a seat at the table amid the national rise in state preemption bills, according to county state association directors. -
Webinar
NACo Information Series on Treasury’s ARPA Flexibility Guidance: Community Development & Title I Projects
Sep. 6, 2023 , 2:00 pm – 3:00 pmOn August 10, the U.S. -
Blog
The County Countdown – August 29, 2023
Every other week, NACo’s County Countdown reviews top federal policy advocacy items with an eye towards counties and the intergovernmental partnership. Watch the video and explore NACo resources below on some of the top issues we are covering this week. -
Reports & Toolkits
Intergovernmental Roles and Responsibilities in Disaster Resilience
County governments across America play a critical role in preparing for or recovering from major disaster events. Since 1980, the United States has experienced 363 weather or climate related disaster events that have cost under $2.6 trillion dollars and taken the lives of 15,971 people.
Contact
-
Executive Director, State and Local Legal Center
Related Resources
-
Blog
The County Countdown – September 26, 2023
Every other week, NACo’s County Countdown reviews top federal policy advocacy items with an eye towards counties and the intergovernmental partnership. Watch the video and explore NACo resources below on some of the top issues we're covering this week. -
Blog
The County Countdown – September 13, 2023
Every other week, NACo’s County Countdown reviews top federal policy advocacy items with an eye towards counties and the intergovernmental partnership. Watch the video and explore NACo resources below on some of the top issues we are covering this week. -
Blog
NACo sends letter to congressional leadership urging prioritization of county activities in FY 2024 appropriations
NACo has sent a letter to congressional leaders urging them to prioritize federal investments in crucial local government activities through the FY 2024 appropriations process.
-
Press Release
Counties Encourage Federal Government Partners to Avoid Shutdown
WASHINGTON – The National Association of Counties (NACo) today issued a statement encouraging a speedy, bipartisan effort to avoid a federal government shutdown. NACo Executive Director Matthew Chase said: -
Reports & Toolkits
What Counties Need to Know When a Government Shutdown Happens
Counties are calling on our federal partners to work in a bipartisan way to keep the federal government fully operational. As intergovernmental partners, any budget uncertainty at the federal level creates uncertainty at the local level as counties administer federal programs on the ground. -
Reports & Toolkits
Intergovernmental Roles and Responsibilities in Disaster Resilience
County governments across America play a critical role in preparing for or recovering from major disaster events. Since 1980, the United States has experienced 363 weather or climate related disaster events that have cost under $2.6 trillion dollars and taken the lives of 15,971 people.
Related Events
-
31Oct2023Webinar
Supreme Court Preview for Local Governments: 2023-2024 Term
Oct. 31, 2023 , 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
More From
-
Treasury releases Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund payments to eligible counties
The U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the release of Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund (LATCF) payments to counties.
Learn More